# People v. Anderson

> California Supreme Court · July 23, 2009 · 47 Cal. 4th 92

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9685309

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BARRY LANE ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 23, 2009
- **Citations:** 47 Cal. 4th 92; 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 77; 211 P.3d 584; 2009 Cal. LEXIS 7479
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Moreno
- **Judges:** Corrigan, Moreno
- **Cited by:** 192 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9685309

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that a sentencing enhancement statute differs from a statute defining "greater and lesser degrees of the same offense" in that the enhancement addresses specified circumstances of the crime but "does not set forth ... a greater degree of the offense charged " (empha…

## Opinion text

MORENO, J.,
Concurring. — I concur in the majority opinion. The possible effect of the majority’s holding, however, is a cause for some concern. Rather than being required to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the underlying offense, the jury that tries a penalty enhancement separately will presumably be told that a defendant has been found guilty of that offense, otherwise it would not be able to convict on the enhancement. In this circumstance, there is the potential that the presumption of innocence for the penalty enhancement, in practical terms, will be eroded, and that therefore a defendant being retried on the enhancement alone will be in a more disadvantageous position than he was in the original trial when the offense and the enhancement were tried together. Whether current standard jury instructions are adequate to safeguard the presumption of innocence in this situation, or a new instruction is needed, remains to be determined.
On August 26, 2009, the opinion was modified to read as printed above.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9685309. Public record. Not legal advice.